The Peter Principle– Part Eleven

Last updated on: January 15, 2020 at 1:50 am by Ben Witherington

The Peter Principle– Part Eleven 2020-01-06T08:31:40-05:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Paul Parvis broaches a subject which one first blush seems to have no basis in history, namely when was Peter the bishop of Antioch, and secondly, when did he found the church there? The short answer would be he wasn’t and he didn’t, however some of the church fathers seem to think otherwise. The evidence is found, partially in Jerome’s translation of Origen’s sixth Homily on Luke, which seems to say that Ignatius of Antioch was the second bishop in that city after Peter. As Parvis points out here there is also the Nicetas fragment which appears to tell a different tale, namely ‘after Peter the second bishop was Ignatius’ which in the Greek indicates there was a first bishop after Peter who is unnamed (p.264). Curiouser and curiouser. Then there is Eusebius’ Chronicon which in Jerome’s translation says that Peter founded the church in Antioch but then is sent to Rome (in year two of the reign of Claudius— i.e. A.D.43) where he continued for 25 years as bishop, preaching the Gospel (p. 265 in Parvis). This puts Peter death at A.D. 68, not 64. ‘Bishop’ is Eusebius’ word choice, but it appears the earlier Greek text simply said ‘presided over’. Furthermore, in the Armenian list of bishops in Antioch, Euodius not Peter is listed as the first bishop of that city.

More important Eusebius (H.E. 3.1.2) says this “Peter seems to have preached to Jews of the Diaspora in Pontus, and Galatia, and Bithynia and Cappadocia, and Asia. And in the end when he was in Rome he was crucified upside down, which is the way he himself asked to suffer.” The important bit of this for our purposes is the first sentence, which indicates clearly that Eusebius takes 1 Peter. 1.1-2 to indicate that Peter was writing to Jews in those regions, not Gentiles. This makes good historical sense in light of the division of labor between Peter and Paul mentioned in Galatians. Eusebius claims he is quoting the above verbatim from Origen’s third book of commentaries on Genesis, but alas, we can not cross check him on that. Eusebius does mention in passing that Ignatius succeeded Peter in Antioch (3.36.3), but as Parvis rightly notes, Eusebius’ ecclesiology was that apostles appointed bishops, they themselves were not bishops (p. 267). In a homily by John Chrysostom on the martyrdom of Ignatius, written while he was in Antioch, Ignatius is praised as the one who succeeded to the rule in Antioch after Peter spent much time there. Rufinus’ version of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions has Peter having a sort of chaired professorship in Antioch and teaching there, but he is not said to be a bishop (Rec. 10.71-72).

In an attempt to ‘exonerate’ Peter there was an argument between Clement of Alexandria and Jerome, with Jerome refuting Clement’s claim that the Cephas Paul was rebuking in Antioch was not our Peter, but someone else of the name! The argument includes an argument from silence. Clement saying Acts doesn’t mention a confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch, to which Jerome retorts, ‘nor does it mention Peter was bishop in Antioch’ but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!! Even later Gregory the Great was claiming Peter was bishop in Antioch for 7 years, whereas Nicophorus says 11 years.

One of the most insightful comments of Parvis is the following about which I think he is undoubtedly correct: “In later antiquity we are moving toward a more jurisdictional and juridical model [of bishop]. It is a transition perhaps not completed until the time of Leo, but one already in train. While for someone like Irenaeus [in the third century] the bishops teach what the apostles taught, in later centuries it was becoming increasingly true that the bishops are what the apostles were.” (p. 271). Parvis rightly lays at the door of Jerome the time when the legend crystalized that Peter was the bishop of Antioch.

As a concluding interesting note, on January 6, 341 A.D. Constantius dedicated the brand new church of Holy Concord in Antioch. As Parvis says, if we only had the record of what was said in that dedication we might discover if the ruler himself thought Peter was the first bishop in Antioch. I would simply add two historical points: 1) in the NT the term episkopos means overseer, and is perhaps on the way to being an office in Phil. 1.1ff. 2) Peter certainly spent some time in the 40s in Antioch as Galatians 2 attests. He was there long enough to get to know various Jewish and Gentile converts there and to share table fellowship with them. When Paul returns from his first missionary journey he finds Peter there. Nothing in Galatians or Acts suggests that Peter was the founder of the church in Antioch, nor that he was leading the church in Antioch, though he might have been teaching there for a while.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 14, 2020

Just Mercy

Next Post

January 16, 2020 The Peter Principle-- Part Twelve

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz